Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Feb. 22, 2022

Created

Tue Oct 26 19:39:39 +0000 2021

Likes

262

Retweets

Source

Twitter for Android

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

PS17/ Certainly, we can *imagine* a situation in which a homicide victim had previously been convicted of some crime, and had been so convicted to the knowledge of the defendant, such that the use of a term *denoting* that crime would be allowable at trial. This ain’t that case. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 26, 2021 Hibernated

Preceded By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

PS16/ And notice the judge’s use of the weasel-word “if” in his ruling. He won't even say any party has established—at any standard of evidence, let alone the highest one—that the homicide victims committed any crime. Yet he’s letting *Rittenhouse’s* attorney *declare* otherwise. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 26, 2021 Hibernated

Followed By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

PS18/ Another option would be to determine what words the defense can use in *closing* (at the *conclusion* of the trial)—doing so post-evidence but pre-closing—thereby waiting to see what evidence is offered and restricting the use of the terms to argument rather than evidence. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Oct. 26, 2021 Hibernated